Saturday, October 18, 2014

Diplomatic terrorism and wings over the Iron Wall

Will the Palestinians ever
get free of Israeli occupation? Will there ever be peace between the State of
Israel and the State of Palestine? If any of these things ever happen, Bahaa
Samir Badir will not be there to see it.

Bahaa Samir Badir

Photo: Haaretz

On the night, the day before
yesterday, Israeli soldiers entered the village of Beit Laqiya near Ramallah, a
routine act such as happens every night in various parts of the West Bank. The village
youth resisted the entry of the soldiers into their village, using stones and
Molotov cocktails - as young Palestinians do in an increasing number of cases
in recent months. Bahaa was shot in the chest and his life ended at the age of
13. Thousands joined in his funeral march. One more name was inscribed in the
very very long list of victims and of martyrs for the Palestinian national
cause.

Ron Prosor, Israel's Ambassador
to the UN, is very angry this week. He is angry at Palestinian diplomatic terrorism. Yes, diplomatic
terrorism which Prosor says is as bad as any other kind of terrorism, a diplomatic
terrorism whose aim is "creating unilateral facts on
the ground" (A rather odd charge, when
Prosor’s own bosses are dedicated to relentless settlements construction...) It
was diplomatic terrorism when two years ago the Palestinians asked for the
State of Palestine to get the status of an Observer State in the United Nations
and 138 countries voted in favor. It is diplomatic terrorism when now they appeal
to the Security Council to establish a timetable for ending the Israeli
occupation. And Sweden is aiding and abetting diplomatic terrorism with its “irresponsible
statement at a
very unfortunate timing“ declaring
an intention to recognize the State of Palestine. Diplomatic terrorism, in
short, is any diplomatic act taken by Palestinians other than sitting at the
negotiating table with representatives of the Government of Israel.

Prosor made an impassioned
plea to the international community to "prevent
the Palestinian cart from rolling off the cliff". "True peace will not be achieved through unilateral
measures, only via direct negotiations, the distance between Ramallah and
Jerusalem being much shorter than to New York or Stockholm."

What would happen if the
Palestinians were convinced by the rebuke of the passionate Ambassador, and
would consent to engage in yet another round of direct negotiations with
Netnayhau’s representatives?

It so happened that Defense
Minister Moshe Ya'alon granted this week an extensive and candid interview to "Israel
Today.”. As he made clear in no uncertain terms, in Ya'alon's vision of the world
there will never be an end to the conflict. The conflict with the Palestinians will
continue "until the last of our enemies understands that we are here to stay."
But that will probably never happen because "They are not truly concerned
with establishing a Palestinian state, but with destroying the Jewish state”. Therefore
“we must learn how to manage this conflict without illusions" and to barricade
[ourselves] behind “An Iron Wall". Ya’alon showed political acumen in
quoting both the term "Iron Wall" - derived from the teachings of
Ze'ev Jabotinsky, spiritual father of
the Likud Party - and also a virtually
identical statement by Dr. Moshe Beilinson, prominent among Jabotinsky’s Socialist
Zionist ideological rivals.

APalestinian who comes to the negotiations table
has definitely nothing to expect from the government in which Ya'alon is the Defense
Minister. Abu Mazen? "He is a partner for discussions, a partner for Conflict
Management. I am not looking for the solution." A Palestinian state?
"We need to free ourselves of the notion that everything boils down to
only one option called a [Palestinian] state. As far as I am concerned, let
them call it the Palestinian Empire. I don't care. In practice, it is an
autonomy".

Probably, British Parliament Members
did not read Ya'alon's special interview, though it was published also in
English - but they did see the footage of destruction and devastation which the
State of Israel poured upon Gaza, and heard quite a lot about the wave of land
expropriations and settlement construction which began immediately after the
bombing ended.

There was a prolonged debate
at Westminster over the motion to support recognition of the State of Palestine. Possibly
the single most important contribution was of Richard Ottaway, the Conservative
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, who said that before he became a
Tory he had already been a supporter of the State of Israel and its right to
exist after the Holocaust.

As he told the gathered MPs:
“Looking back over the past 20 years, I realise now Israel has slowly been
drifting away from world public opinion. The annexation of the 950 acres of the
West Bank, just a few months ago, has outraged me more than anything else in my
political life. It has made me look a fool, and that is something I deeply
resent. I have to say to the government of Israel: if it is losing people like
me, it is going to be losing a lot of people.”

And so, after five hours of
debate, the British Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority of 274 against
12 to for recognizing the State of
Palestine. Several of the speakers had referred to the public call of 373 Israeli
citizens, including well-known public figures:

"We, Israelis who worry
and care for the well-being of the State of Israel, believe that the long-term
existence and security of Israel depends on the long-term existence and
security of a Palestinian state. For this reason we, the undersigned, urge Members
of the UK Parliament to vote in favour of the motion to be debated on Monday,
13th October, 2014, calling on the British Government to recognize the State of
Palestine alongside the State of Israel "

Ninety-seven years ago, British
Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour issued a famous document stating
that "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” – to which a specific
condition was set: “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done
which may prejudice the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish
communities in Palestine”.

Not even the most staunch of
Zionists would dare state that this “clearly understood” condition was actually
complied with. In practice, there did
happen during the following century an all too serious “prejudice” to the
rights of the non-Jewish communities living in 1917 in the Ottoman province.
This week, Her Majesty's Government has made at least a small step to compensate
for this damage, when Prime Minister Cameron chose to absent himself from the
vote and by his absence facilitate the passage of the resolution.

The British vote will probably have sequels. According to French Foreign
Minister Laurent Fabius "It is only logical" that France would
recognize a Palestinian state. "The only question is what steps will be
most effective in achieving peace, we do not want a merely symbolic step. Until
now, the concept was that recognition has to be directly linked with negotiations.
But at the moment that negotiations are no longer possible, or that clearly
they would not lead to any agreement, France would of
course not shirk her responsibilities”. For their part, Members of Spanish Parliament are probably
going to emulate their British counterparts and call upon their government to
recognize the State of Palestine, too. An especially significant step considering that
Spain is about to join the UN Security Council, one of the countries on whom
will fall the decision on the Palestinian request to set a date for ending the
occupation.

Adding to Netanyahu’s
headaches came this week an unexpected public challenge from a group of
disaffected young Israelis who had moved, of all places, to Berlin. Some of
them left Israel behind with a feeling of despair at the rightward trends in
Israeli society, the decreasing and disappearance of the chances for peace, the
increase of extreme nationalism and racism, and the lack of hope for a positive
change. For others, the last straw was the soaring cost of living, the
inability of young people to find an apartment at an affordable price, and the
failure of the 2011 social protest movement which brought hundreds of thousands
of demonstrators out into the streets
but failed to achieve any concrete change in government economic policies.
Undeterred by the dark shadows of Berlin’s past, the young Israelis find Berlin
of 2014 to be a young and vibrant city, in which democracy is solidly
established - and where both consumer goods and housing are incomparably
cheaper than in Israel.

Members of this
taboo-breaking self-exiled community came up with the subversive slogan "Making
Aliya to Berlin". Four words which flagrantly overturn the traditional
order of Zionist moral values, whereby a Jew who comes to Israel from any other
place is performing a praiseworthy “Aliya” (Ascent) while anyone leaving Israel
is guilty of contemptible “Yerida” (Descent).

“Israel of 2014 is a nation
state for rich Jews, high-tech workers and generals' children” wrote one of the
protest organizers. “A state in which young people have no chance of buying a
house and can’t afford to raise a child, where a working person is poor and
humiliated and a student lives like a dog.

Elections can change nothing,
nothing but the identity of those in power. The policies will remain the same.
The politicians know for whom they are working, and it is not for you. “Vote
with your wings.” Flock to Ben-Gurion Airport in masses. Let the government
chase after us to Berlin and try to convince us to come back. Believe me, if we
get 100,000 or 200,000 Israelis in Berlin, we will start seeing some changes in
Israel. See you in Berlin!”